He [Peters] also announced a new policy to tackle binge drinking and drug taking.

“We propose, to the degree that it could cause serious harm to themselves, or someone else, it will be an offence to be drunk or seriously drug affected in a public place, or while trespassing on private property,” with offenders paying fines of up to $2000 or three months in prison.

Would this policy apply to someone who say drank wine for six hours at GPK Bar in Takapuna, and then on the way home pulled down his trousers and pissed on a tree?

Is Winston saying that someone in such a situation should be eligible to go into prison for three months?

Share this:

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Monday, July 21st, 2014 at 1:00 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

“It’s such a large out that it makes the policy a bit nonsensical anyway.”

No, it’s the opposite. That’s why it’s such a draconian idea. You’ll have the state deciding what constitutes serious harm in an almost limitless number of situations. You’ll also need to breathalyse offenders, won’t you? How can you say that behaviour is drug or alcohol related unless you prove that the person is indeed under the influence.

Christ, it’s bad enough that the cops can randomly stop you on the roads without actual cause. Is this what we want while we’re walking along our streets, too?

All in all it wouldn’t be a bad policy if the sentence was compulsory attendance at substance abuse therapy on pain of a prison sentence, …

Attendance at such courses to evade imprisonment or conviction are a complete waste of time. Substance abuse therapy on ever works when the attendee is committed to altering their habits. Being made to attend by the Courts, parents, partners, schools etc does not work, unless the person has accepted they have a problem, and that they need to fix that problem. For years it has become a widely abused condition.

In my opinion we need a ‘behaviour bond’ – sentence deferral or whatever you want to call it, for an extended period of time, where the offender not only completes the course, but has sufficient time to demonstrate that they have reduced/ceased their substance abuse. Then and only then, should they be sentenced on the original charge.

21.2 Public drunkenness, as an offence, was removed from the New Zealand statute book
with the enactment of the Summary Offences Act 1981.1171 In our Issues Paper,
Alcohol in Our Lives, we raised the question whether there should be a return
to such an offence, perhaps as an infringement offence.1172 The public
consultations disclosed reasonably high levels of support for the reintroduction
of such an offence in order to make people personally responsible for their
behaviour. Of the 2,939 submitters, 702 commented on the policy options
relating to drinking in public places. Of those 702, 60% supported reintroduction
of the offence of being drunk in a public place. Others raised questions about the
definition of “drunk”, whether there could be exceptions and whether all
locations were a concern. The Hospitality Association of New Zealand submitted
that creation of such an infringement offence would send a clear and powerful
message to the public that intoxication is unacceptable.1173 It would, therefore,
provide an element of personal responsibility for an individual’s actions.
21.3 Data presented to us by the New Zealand Police disclosed that, in 1980, there
were 7,696 offences of being found drunk in a public place.1174 The submission
from the New Zealand Police analysed the likely impact of reintroducing drunk
in a public place as an offence. The submission states:1175
Re-introducing similar offences in the current drinking environment would bring
a considerable number of people into the criminal justice system, particularly those
groups that are already over-represented in the system. The impact would
be particularly significant on Maori and young people, by bringing them into the
criminal justice system.
There would be a significant increase of calls for service through the Police
communication centres. Because of the visibility of the offence it is likely that many
complaints would be made to the Police about drunken people in public places.
Many of these would be during the peak offending times for the Police, when there
is already high demand for our services. Police’s capacity to enforce this offence would
damage the community’s perception of the Police.
contd – see link

Never mind Takapuna, would the debating chamber count as “a public place” for the purposes of this legislation, and would someone who was to unable to speak coherently or fell asleep mid-debate, meet the definition of “drunk”?

RRM, does beating your wife while drunk deserve a greater or lesser sentence than doing the same while completely sober?

We should punish people who violate the rights of others based on the seriousness of the violation, not what substance was in the offender’s body at the time. Blaming an inanimate object for any crime is silly, whether it is alcohol, drugs, guns or something else.

Sadly all it takes is 1in 20 voters to be a redneck Chinese hating low self esteem ignoramus and we will have the worst policies of all the opposition parties forced down our throats for three long years.

Why does the law say things like “fines of up to $2000 or three months in prison.”

Who seriously would choose 3 months in prison over $2000?
Presumably only those who don’t have $2000…
My point being that it should be more like “$200,000 or/and 3 months” or “$2000 or/and 4 days.” depending on the seriousness.

And what about the existing provisions in the Summary Offences Act about being drunk in a public place?

38 Drinking in public place
(1)Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $300 who, in or on any aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry or other vessel, train, or vehicle that is carrying passengers for reward,—
(a)drinks any intoxicating liquor; or
(b)supplies or offers any intoxicating liquor to any other person for consumption there; or
(c)has in his possession or under his control any intoxicating liquor for consumption there.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), if any aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry or other vessel, train, or vehicle carries any passengers while under charter it shall be deemed to be carrying those passengers for reward.
(3)Without limiting subsection (1), every person under the age of 18 years commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $300 who, in any public place (or in a vehicle in any public place) and while not accompanied by his or her parent or legal guardian,—
(a)drinks any intoxicating liquor; or
(b)has in his possession or under his control any intoxicating liquor for consumption there

Moreover, the Summary Offences Act has ample other comparable sanctions in its other clauses: